By Any Means

Yes, honestly, who pays these guys to have them say the show is bad? I want a cut, because otherwise I'm giving it at least 7 stars.

I felt the need to come here and post this review after I saw that literally everybody on this page gave it no more than 2 stars. Come on people, how close-minded can you be???

The show is like a British version of Leverage, and it is great and funny. Charismatic actors, good solid scripts (it ain't Doctor Who, but it does a very good job) and a very nice atmosphere make from this recipe a very entertaining series.

Disregard the people crushing it with their comments. They're just very bored people who probably love to watch soaps and stuff.

Briefly, I'd like to say that I agree with lots of the points raised in more negative reviews; By Any Means reflects styles that we've seen before, much of the content is quite lightweight and there have definitely been higher spec productions. However, because I enjoy the program I tend to view those as positives.

I've enjoyed some of the techniques previously seen elsewhere and hopefully if they opt for a second season they will refine them rather than overuse them. I think there is not just space but a continuing need for material that is lighter in tone within the TV schedule, to maintain a full range of options for people. Regarding the production quality, if you enjoy a program you make allowances at the same time as you suspend your disbelief and focus on the story; if I'd been forced to sit through the episode and had found it annoying from the off then every little thing would have compounded the frustration, but happily I enjoyed it.

Less rambling. By Any Means has characterisation that is writ large, the nods to recent events are fairly unsubtle and you can rely on the twist. It is what it is, which is a police procedural with flavours from a number of family friendly programs (most obviously Hustle, I am also put in mind of the sense of adventure fun in the earlier seasons of Primeval and Robin Hood, although that may be influenced by certain actors!) Simplest way to work out if it is of interest would be to watch an episode. If you start feeling the urge to rant about licence fees part way through, or the state of the BBC, how the world was better when you were 12 and so forth, I'd stop part way through and have a cup of tea :)

If you thought the BBC had been wrecking its own reputation enough recently, with its scandals at the top, it has now decided to have a go at its good name as a provider of Sunday night dramas. This series is dross - so bad it's almost good. Almost. With a few tweaks (removing the references to sex) it might be all right for Saturday early evening, when Dr Who is off the air, because children often like comics.

The premise is trashy and the details are clichéd. In the opening episode, Keith Allen reprises his old OTT Sheriff of Nottingham role, the comic baddie. If only he'd had moustaches, he would have been able to twirl them.

The BBC still has the wrong bosses. Give another tranche the customary payoff.

From the makers of Hustle which may have inspired Leverage a few years later in America.

Now this is a combination of Leverage and Hustle (with many of the same visual tricks used.)

Warren Brown plays a kind of a cop whose team takes down criminals and other assorted bad guys in ways the normal law enforcement agencies cannot.

Each week a mysterious Gina McKee would hand over an Ipad containing a dossier of the latest target for the gang. Each week Warren Brown would take the Ipad and fail to return it!

The series will not be returning to the BBC because of low ratings. Where Hustle was sharp, entertaining and had a good team that gelled.

This was bland, a bit boring and Warren Brown is no Adrian Lester. The rest of the team were no match for the Hustle gang.

Maybe, this series should had waited for a few years while our memories of Hustle faded. The format needed more work.

As it is this was average with little promise, hence no renewal.

hello fellow TV show addicts,

please excuse a little explanation at the beginning. this is the first time i feel obligated to write here on IMDb. For quite a while i am overall a little disturbed by the sometimes extreme ratings for shows here on IMDb. As if there were only tens and zeros out there. In my opinion one needs to learn to differentiate a bit in his life. To moan about an overall decline in values, the wasting of taxpayers money and other exaggerated, demagogic ranting just because of a TV-show? Really? Over here in many of central Europe's other countries public service broadcasting is still your granny's TV. Limited to two Channels, broadcasting News, some decent reports and besides that mostly breakfast television, dusty whodunit repetitions and other things with a slightly relicish feel.

All that in mind back to topic:

This TV-show may not be another Luther, Sherlock nor any other high end, ingeniously plotted, exquisitely acted, overall gorgeous, critically acclaimed, kick-ass TV-marvel. but, does it need to be? does it want to?

i stumbled upon this new format by accident whilst looking for new things to watch. I liked the leading actor quite a lot on Luther, so i gave it a try. Thankfully before reading any reviews. A decent meal can leave you quite satisfied after a long day, doesn't it? And like that this show works for me. Yes, you can see right through the webbing of this show. The lead, the geek, the eye candy. Does a twist even deserve to be called a twist if you expected it right on time? rather not. The almost comical black and white views on good and bad.

But still, i liked it. I liked to be right. I liked getting nothing unexpected. I liked the boastful appearance of the characters. I liked the snappy comments and the predictable one-liners.

So if you're looking for something to clear your head, ease your mind or have a smile now and then. I encourage you to try it.

Not every nice evening has to feature a six-course dinner.

greetings from the deep south of Bavaria